And then adjourned. Because Scalise won a majority of Republican votes behind closed doors but not so many that he would win a majority of the full House.
Under a normal caucus someone who won the most votes and got the endorsement of his biggest in-party opponent would be swiftly elected Speaker. The Republicans are apparently not a normal caucus. Good thing there's nothingurgent going on in the world right now!
And then adjourned. Because Scalise won a majority of Republican votes behind closed doors but not so many that he would win a majority of the full House.
I think he will have the same trouble as McCarthy in keeping the hardliners in his camp.
The significance of the Scalise recommendation, though, is the Republican Caucus largely ignored Trump's endorsement. In other words, some of them showed they are not afraid to stand up against Trump. Trump does not hold an iron grip on the Republicans after all.
Right, and this has been increasing rapidly from what I can see over the past 18 months or so. It almost looks as if his endorsement is becoming a kiss of death even among Republicans. But surely that can't be true just yet, can it?
If it were that, Scalise would have the votes he needs to be speaker. Trump is increasingly a polarizing figure within the party, but the pendulum hasn't swung all the way the other direction, and it might not do so. The NY Times reports that Rep. Massie of Kentucky, supporting Jordan, said, "You may have some people who privately voted for Scalise but publicly won't do that." They won't go against Trump for fear of his base.
Chad Pergram
Raskin: We have 212 votes for Hakeem Jeffries, who is extremely well organized and efficient..and all we would need is 6 votes from Republicans in order to put Hakeem Jeffries over the (top). But if they're not willing to do that, they should figure out what they are doing.
So who is this Chad Pergram who is so willing to pass along shade Raskin is throwing at Republicans? According to his X-Twitter bio he's "the Senior Congressional Correspondent for Fox News". Apparently Rupert's Lachlan's band of political arsonists think this is a bad look for the brand.
I still like my old idea of having some attorney write up a writ of mandamus to require the House of Representatives to do its job, and then get at least a hundred million Americans to sign it.
Sede vacante day 9. Steve Scalise, the winner of the internal Republican straw poll for Speaker of the House of Representatives, has withdrawn his name for consideration for the post. This does not bode well.
I will note that Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has 212 votes behind him at the moment, more than any Republican candidate for Speaker of the House. I'll also post a little list.
Anthony D'Esposito (R-NY04)
John Duarte (R-CA13)
Mike Garcia (R-CA27)
Mike Lawler (R-NY17)
David Valadao (R-CA22)
These are five members of the House Republican caucus who represent districts that were won by Joe Biden by more than ten percentage points in 2020. By not quite coincidence five is the number of House Republicans it would take to make Hakeem Jeffries Speaker of the House and end this unholy farce. Just sayin'.
I keep having similar thoughts, and then I think it sounds too much like something from "The West Wing." But the reps from California do have the advantage of our open primary system; they wouldn't get primaried from the right for doing this because there is no Republican primary here for any office but president. I don't see how it's anything but political suicide for the NY reps.
Let's say 5 Republicans did offer support for Jeffries - what demands would they make in exchange for their votes? Surely they'd want assurances that Democrats wouldn't do a lot of things they'd hate.
What could Democrats do without a majority? A Democratic Speaker of a Republican House would be well advised to just do what the House wants and not try to force an agenda.
What could Democrats do without a majority? A Democratic Speaker of a Republican House would be well advised to just do what the House wants and not try to force an agenda.
They can probably force votes that make Republicans choose to put themselves on the wrong side of public opinion or vote with the Democrats and risk the wrath of their base. And they can probably ditch the impeachment investigation again Biden.
What could Democrats do without a majority? A Democratic Speaker of a Republican House would be well advised to just do what the House wants and not try to force an agenda.
They can probably force votes that make Republicans choose to put themselves on the wrong side of public opinion or vote with the Democrats and risk the wrath of their base. And they can probably ditch the impeachment investigation again Biden.
A promise not to do anything like that would be a necessary condition Republicans even thinking of crossing the aisle would require.
Is there any situation, where the house is not functioning, that triggers it to dissolve and hold an election early ?
No.
One of the weaknesses of our constitutional system, unfortunately. I suspect the Founding Fathers, with their experience of living under a king, were focused on keeping the presidency from becoming a monarchy. It seems like they didn't consider any failsafes for what to do if the entire legislative branch refuses to do its job.
This has already been a problem recently, when my senior Senator (huick-ptooey) Mitch McConnell (then Senate Majority Leader) simply refused to bring any of Pres. Obama's judicial nominations to a vote in the Senate. He just kept all the open seats on the federal judiciary to be appointed by the next Republican president. The Constitution says the president nominates federal judges and the Senate votes on whether to confirm them - there's nothing in there about what to do if one of them won't do their part.
Participating in a majority organizational vote means, if sometimes only implicitly, abiding by its results. The caucus vote wasn’t a straw poll or an advisory opinion. It’s binding. It’s over. And yet it was treated as basically a given, in the GOP caucus and in the press coverage, that Scalise, having won the vote, then had to build from the 113 he got in the caucus vote to 217.
You’re probably saying: We know this Josh. They’re a mess. But we know this.
But I think that’s only a measure of how much this has been normalized when it’s actually completely abnormal. The literal definition of a caucus in American political usage is a defined group that collectively decides on actions by majority vote and then acts in unison in a parliamentary context.
In other words, refusing to abide by the results of an election you lost is now becoming standard operating procedure for Republicans, so of course they're unable to unify behind a single candidate.
Then of course there's the fact that Republicans just nominated someone for Speaker of the House who seems to have been neck deep in the January 6 coup attempt.
Don't forget the accusations that Mr. Jordan ignored the claims that 100 wrestling team members and other students were sexually abused by the team doctor while Jordan was the wrestling coach at Ohio State University back in the 70s.
I am sure Jordan's opponents will be doing a deep dive into his background this weekend.
Looks like Mr. Jordan will try to force a vote on Tuesday. There appears to be at least 20, maybe 40, Republican Representatives who will vote against him.
There may be a move to allow Interim Speaker McHenry more power to move some emergency legislation to a vote.
Sede vacante day 14. The House of Representatives will attempt to elect a Speaker today at noon (EDT). This is either a sign that Jordan has the votes or Jordan trying to force the issue by daring his Republican opponents to go on the record with their opposition (and their willingness to leave the House Speakerless to block him).
On the other hand, maybe Jordan is feeling some time pressure himself. It's been four days since he notionally unified his party behind him. If the vote is delayed too much longer that notional unity will come even more into question.
Yep. Still voting, but at this point 9 Representatives have voted for someone other than Gym Jordan or Hakeem Jeffries, so no majority is possible (unless a lot of people near the end of the vote "present", in which case it would probably mean Speaker Jeffries).
There seemed to be a number who didn’t respond at all, how many rounds of voting are there ?
At the end of the roll call voting they'll call out the names of any Representative who hasn't voted, giving them a second chance. Once that's done they typically allow five minutes to for any Representative to approach the podium and register (or change) their vote.
If this goes on long enough is there any likelihood of the speaker protem moving to change the rules to the winner being the majority of those voting ?
Vote count on the first ballot for Speaker of the House:
Hakeem Jeffries (D) 212
Jim Jordan (R) 200
Steve Scalise (R) 7
Kevin McCarthy (R) 6
Lee Zeldin (R) 3
Tom Cole (R) 1
Tom Emmer (R) 1
Mike Garcia (R) 1
Thomas Massie (R) 1
Present 0
Not Voting 1
At this point Jordan needs to convince 17 of the 20 Republicans who voted against him (or the one Republican who didn't vote) to support him. That's a pretty tough lift.
"House Republicans have 221 members, while Democrats have 212. That means a majority of the House right now is 217 members."
It's 217 for any Republican or Democrat.
No, the rule for election of the Speaker is a majority of those present and voting. 217 is required if all members are present and vote.
. . . if all members are present and vote for a person. Voting "present" is not counted towards anyone's total and reduces the number needed to reach a majority.
"House Republicans have 221 members, while Democrats have 212. That means a majority of the House right now is 217 members."
It's 217 for any Republican or Democrat.
No, the rule for election of the Speaker is a majority of those present and voting. 217 is required if all members are present and vote.
. . . if all members are present and vote for a person. Voting "present" is not counted towards anyone's total and reduces the number needed to reach a majority.
Is there any chance five more republicans might vote present to let Jeffries in without actually voting for him ?
You'd need at least ten Republicans for that, or ten Republicans willing to simply not show up. In this context voting "present" is the same as not voting.
In order for Jeffries to win either five Republican need to be willing to vote for him (giving him a majority of the 433 potential votes in the House) or ten Republicans need to be willing to not vote or vote "present" (lowering the number of votes cast for a person to at most 423, making 212 votes a majority). There are possible combinations in between. (e.g. two Republicans vote for Jeffries and six vote "present", meaning you only need to recruit eight Republicans.) So far no Republicans have been willing to cross that line, so getting five or ten of them to do so seems far-fetched.
Jordan has won more enemies than friends during his stint as a member of the House. His famous "Drop dead New York" when it needed a supplemental bill to pass for recovery operations after Hurricane Sandy still reverberates through the Capitol hallways. He used that similar line during a number of such requests for recovery assistance. Great way to make enemies.
I would think it would be better for the House to give the interim Speaker the power to bring legislation before the House so that we can get things done.
So far no Republicans have been willing to cross that line, so getting five or ten of them to do so seems far-fetched.
Jordan's backers in and outside of the House are encouraging the MAGA extremist base to inundate the offices of all Republican House members not voting for Jordan with calls saying they're not true conservatives and will be primaried from the right. That could backfire on the hard right, I suppose, making holdouts just that much more firm in their rejection of Jordan. But I don't see how any Republican who votes for Jeffries or votes present survives their next primary.
I love that Scalise said no to Jordan when Jordan asked for his vote. Jordan helped torpedo Scalise's chances by not issuing a full-throated endorsement after Scalise became the nominee; now he's had a taste of his own medicine.
But I don't see how any Republican who votes for Jeffries or votes present survives their next primary.
Perhaps even more importantly they'd be giving up the kind of well compensated sinecure that the American right uses to reward its loyalists. Crossing the line would mean kissing goodbye that job as a talking head on Fox News or the make work position with a right wing "think tank". It's one thing to make that kind of choice if you're ready to get out of elected politics anyway, but it's another thing entirely if you also torch your post-Congressional career at the same time.
Jordan has a fairly limited skill set as a politician. Mostly he's good at making a lot of noise and bullying people. He may very well have hit the limit of his ability with his campaign for the Speakership.
But I don't see how any Republican who votes for Jeffries or votes present survives their next primary.
Perhaps even more importantly they'd be giving up the kind of well compensated sinecure that the American right uses to reward its loyalists. Crossing the line would mean kissing goodbye that job as a talking head on Fox News or the make work position with a right wing "think tank". It's one thing to make that kind of choice if you're ready to get out of elected politics anyway, but it's another thing entirely if you also torch your post-Congressional career at the same time.
I suppose that's why Romney was one of the few consistent anti-Trumpers, being already at the end of his career and having already as much money as most can imagine.
I do think it shows a lack of long-term imagination on the Republican side though. It may be that in 20 years' time Trumpistas no longer rule the roost, and having been against him may not seem such a bad career move after all. And if in 20 years' time Trumpistas still rule the roost then everything will be so ghastly that you'd be better off not having a political career anyway?
Apologies. At the time I posted this the AP was saying yesterday evening.
I understand Jordan wanted a second ballot on Tuesday evening, but he did not have the votes to proceed.
I don't think he has enough votes this morning either.
To the point that no Republican would be willing to cross the aisle. that it would be the kiss of death career wise, I think they may have to do that just to get things done.
But I don't see how any Republican who votes for Jeffries or votes present survives their next primary.
Perhaps even more importantly they'd be giving up the kind of well compensated sinecure that the American right uses to reward its loyalists. Crossing the line would mean kissing goodbye that job as a talking head on Fox News or the make work position with a right wing "think tank". It's one thing to make that kind of choice if you're ready to get out of elected politics anyway, but it's another thing entirely if you also torch your post-Congressional career at the same time.
I suppose that's why Romney was one of the few consistent anti-Trumpers, being already at the end of his career and having already as much money as most can imagine.
I do think it shows a lack of long-term imagination on the Republican side though. It may be that in 20 years' time Trumpistas no longer rule the roost, and having been against him may not seem such a bad career move after all. And if in 20 years' time Trumpistas still rule the roost then everything will be so ghastly that you'd be better off not having a political career anyway?
If there is a backlash against Trumpism I suspect most of the current GOP will have always been at war with Eurasia against Trumpism and there will be no effort to clean house, and it will affect their careers not one bit.
Sede vacante day 15. Those wishing to watch the second ballot for Speaker of the House can watch here. They're currently conducting a quorum count and C-SPAN is taking calls from viewers until something interesting happens.
These votes are taken alphabetically. The only got to the letter D and there were five votes for someone other than Jeffries or Jordan, meaning that no one will get a majority this time either (even if everyone sticks to their party's nominee from here on out).
Comments
Under a normal caucus someone who won the most votes and got the endorsement of his biggest in-party opponent would be swiftly elected Speaker. The Republicans are apparently not a normal caucus. Good thing there's nothing urgent going on in the world right now!
I think he will have the same trouble as McCarthy in keeping the hardliners in his camp.
The significance of the Scalise recommendation, though, is the Republican Caucus largely ignored Trump's endorsement. In other words, some of them showed they are not afraid to stand up against Trump. Trump does not hold an iron grip on the Republicans after all.
So who is this Chad Pergram who is so willing to pass along shade Raskin is throwing at Republicans? According to his X-Twitter bio he's "the Senior Congressional Correspondent for Fox News". Apparently Rupert's Lachlan's band of political arsonists think this is a bad look for the brand.
I will note that Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has 212 votes behind him at the moment, more than any Republican candidate for Speaker of the House. I'll also post a little list.
These are five members of the House Republican caucus who represent districts that were won by Joe Biden by more than ten percentage points in 2020. By not quite coincidence five is the number of House Republicans it would take to make Hakeem Jeffries Speaker of the House and end this unholy farce. Just sayin'.
Let's say 5 Republicans did offer support for Jeffries - what demands would they make in exchange for their votes? Surely they'd want assurances that Democrats wouldn't do a lot of things they'd hate.
They can probably force votes that make Republicans choose to put themselves on the wrong side of public opinion or vote with the Democrats and risk the wrath of their base. And they can probably ditch the impeachment investigation again Biden.
A promise not to do anything like that would be a necessary condition Republicans even thinking of crossing the aisle would require.
One of the weaknesses of our constitutional system, unfortunately. I suspect the Founding Fathers, with their experience of living under a king, were focused on keeping the presidency from becoming a monarchy. It seems like they didn't consider any failsafes for what to do if the entire legislative branch refuses to do its job.
This has already been a problem recently, when my senior Senator (huick-ptooey) Mitch McConnell (then Senate Majority Leader) simply refused to bring any of Pres. Obama's judicial nominations to a vote in the Senate. He just kept all the open seats on the federal judiciary to be appointed by the next Republican president. The Constitution says the president nominates federal judges and the Senate votes on whether to confirm them - there's nothing in there about what to do if one of them won't do their part.
Josh Marshall ties this to Republican's growing distrust/dislike of democracy.
In other words, refusing to abide by the results of an election you lost is now becoming standard operating procedure for Republicans, so of course they're unable to unify behind a single candidate.
Then of course there's the fact that Republicans just nominated someone for Speaker of the House who seems to have been neck deep in the January 6 coup attempt.
I am sure Jordan's opponents will be doing a deep dive into his background this weekend.
There may be a move to allow Interim Speaker McHenry more power to move some emergency legislation to a vote.
Stand by please, world.
On the other hand, maybe Jordan is feeling some time pressure himself. It's been four days since he notionally unified his party behind him. If the vote is delayed too much longer that notional unity will come even more into question.
Yep. Still voting, but at this point 9 Representatives have voted for someone other than Gym Jordan or Hakeem Jeffries, so no majority is possible (unless a lot of people near the end of the vote "present", in which case it would probably mean Speaker Jeffries).
At the end of the roll call voting they'll call out the names of any Representative who hasn't voted, giving them a second chance. Once that's done they typically allow five minutes to for any Representative to approach the podium and register (or change) their vote.
So three rounds.
I think the Jordan is finding it is worse than they expected.
It's 217 for any Republican or Democrat.
No, the rule for election of the Speaker is a majority of those present and voting. 217 is required if all members are present and vote.
At this point Jordan needs to convince 17 of the 20 Republicans who voted against him (or the one Republican who didn't vote) to support him. That's a pretty tough lift.
. . . if all members are present and vote for a person. Voting "present" is not counted towards anyone's total and reduces the number needed to reach a majority.
Interestingly, as a Congressperson Jim Jordan has never passed a bill into law. He’s never even passed a bill through the House. And yet here we are.
You'd need at least ten Republicans for that, or ten Republicans willing to simply not show up. In this context voting "present" is the same as not voting.
In order for Jeffries to win either five Republican need to be willing to vote for him (giving him a majority of the 433 potential votes in the House) or ten Republicans need to be willing to not vote or vote "present" (lowering the number of votes cast for a person to at most 423, making 212 votes a majority). There are possible combinations in between. (e.g. two Republicans vote for Jeffries and six vote "present", meaning you only need to recruit eight Republicans.) So far no Republicans have been willing to cross that line, so getting five or ten of them to do so seems far-fetched.
I would think it would be better for the House to give the interim Speaker the power to bring legislation before the House so that we can get things done.
Jordan's backers in and outside of the House are encouraging the MAGA extremist base to inundate the offices of all Republican House members not voting for Jordan with calls saying they're not true conservatives and will be primaried from the right. That could backfire on the hard right, I suppose, making holdouts just that much more firm in their rejection of Jordan. But I don't see how any Republican who votes for Jeffries or votes present survives their next primary.
I love that Scalise said no to Jordan when Jordan asked for his vote. Jordan helped torpedo Scalise's chances by not issuing a full-throated endorsement after Scalise became the nominee; now he's had a taste of his own medicine.
Second ballot will be at 11:00 a.m. ET tomorrow.
Perhaps even more importantly they'd be giving up the kind of well compensated sinecure that the American right uses to reward its loyalists. Crossing the line would mean kissing goodbye that job as a talking head on Fox News or the make work position with a right wing "think tank". It's one thing to make that kind of choice if you're ready to get out of elected politics anyway, but it's another thing entirely if you also torch your post-Congressional career at the same time.
Jordan has a fairly limited skill set as a politician. Mostly he's good at making a lot of noise and bullying people. He may very well have hit the limit of his ability with his campaign for the Speakership.
Apologies. At the time I posted this the AP was saying yesterday evening.
I suppose that's why Romney was one of the few consistent anti-Trumpers, being already at the end of his career and having already as much money as most can imagine.
I do think it shows a lack of long-term imagination on the Republican side though. It may be that in 20 years' time Trumpistas no longer rule the roost, and having been against him may not seem such a bad career move after all. And if in 20 years' time Trumpistas still rule the roost then everything will be so ghastly that you'd be better off not having a political career anyway?
I understand Jordan wanted a second ballot on Tuesday evening, but he did not have the votes to proceed.
I don't think he has enough votes this morning either.
To the point that no Republican would be willing to cross the aisle. that it would be the kiss of death career wise, I think they may have to do that just to get things done.
If there is a backlash against Trumpism I suspect most of the current GOP will have always been at war with Eurasia against Trumpism and there will be no effort to clean house, and it will affect their careers not one bit.